Riaa curve

I should have mentioned that I am/was the Aerospace type of engineer and worked on military missile guidance systems since 1961. Back in the day we overdesigned everything. What the hell...we were saving the world from the USSR. Cost was not an issue. It was technically interesting work. (I guess for high end audio cost is not an issue either). But when you think about it putting an H-Bomb 100 feet from the target is not really better than 200 feet.

Eldartford, its my opinion that in high end audio you build the equipment to do the job, then figure out how much it costs when you are done. It is a bit different from targeting a bomb :)

If tighter tolerances make a difference...why not design 100% accurate phono?

Phasecorrect
...Don't encourage him!! :-)

Ultimately, the accuracy of the inverse RIAA equalization on a phono preamp is only meaningful to the point it is equal to the accuracy of the equalization used on the cutter in the production process.

Look at it this way. I can't add "about 2" plus 2.00000 and expect an answer of 4.00000. The "about 2" in the left hand side of the equation limits my answer to "about 4."

If one looks back to the "golden age" of LP production - the 1960s - which produced in particular jazz and classical recordings that are still revered to this day, I seriously doubt that much of the production equipment was much more accurate than 1 dB.

One has to be careful to not chase one specification to the exclusion of others. That happened in the 1970s when amp designers went after ultra low distortion numbers. They overused feedback which gave good looking static test numbers but gave audibly poor results with dynamic music.

Yes, a flat frequency response is a worthy goal. But then so are lots of other characteristics. The goal is not how each one tests by itself in a static environment but rather how they operate in unison when playing music.